Damage Control! Damage Control!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jacko on 14 Jun 2010 22:41 If you take the simple factors that the piriah groups Ly and J4 do not have in common with the monster, then take the common 37 out, then Tc the element has the J4 remainder atomic number, and the Ly remainder of 67 minus the difference between the J4 43 and the common 37 has the atomic number of 61, and guess what promethium has in common with technitium???
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 Jun 2010 23:19 On Jun 14, 10:41 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- On Jun 14, 10:47 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- undress to reply) wrote: > > First, this in no way endangers any paradigm. ... ... ... ... ... > Thus, even if the observations are re-interpreted to give > different values, this in no way questions any assumptions. --------------------------------------------------------------- So, according to you, if the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are in possible jeopardy, there is "no problemo" for the LCDM model, or the generic standard paradigm? No reason to question fundamental assumptions? Not if 99% of what was supposed to be the mass/energy of the cosmos vanishes like the Cheshire Cat? Like I said: 'Bring on the fudge!' RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: General Omar Windbottom on 14 Jun 2010 23:27 On Jun 14, 7:20 pm, eric gasse narr <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------ On Jun 14, 10:47 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- undress to reply) wrote: > > First, this in no way endangers any paradigm. ... ... ... ... ... > Thus, even if the observations are re-interpreted to give > different values, this in no way questions any assumptions. --------------------------------------------------------------- So, according to you, if the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are in possible jeopardy, there is "no problemo" for the LCDM model, or the generic standard paradigm? No reason to question fundamental assumptions? Not if 99% of what was supposed to be the mass/energy of the cosmos vanishes like the Cheshire Cat? Like I said: 'Bring on the fudge!' RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 15 Jun 2010 02:29 General Omar Windbottom wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:20 pm, eric gasse narr <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > On Jun 14, 10:47 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- > undress to reply) wrote: >> >> First, this in no way endangers any paradigm. > ... ... ... ... ... >> Thus, even if the observations are re-interpreted to give >> different values, this in no way questions any assumptions. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > So, according to you, if the concepts of dark matter and dark energy > are in possible jeopardy, there is "no problemo" for the LCDM model, > or the generic standard paradigm? No reason to question fundamental > assumptions? Not if 99% of what was supposed to be the mass/energy of > the cosmos vanishes like the Cheshire Cat? > > Like I said: 'Bring on the fudge!' > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw So Robert, why don't you explain to me - in your own words - how you think this impacts cosmology as a whole? Specifics, please. If you can.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 16 Jun 2010 01:13
On Jun 15, 4:52 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- undress to reply) wrote: > What would > challenge the paradigm would be an observation which could not be > explained by any combination of the usual parameters. (And, no, one > cannot "fit anything"---especially not thousands of data points---with > just a few parameters.) ------------------------------------------------------- To the contrary, the model-building of the last several decades clearly shows that theoreticians can mold their multiple-free- parameter creations [QCD might be the poster-child for this new type of "science"] to fit whatever has been found. Examples: (1) Lots of dark matter (2) Considerably less dark matter (3) No dark energy (not even dreamed up yet) (4) Lots of dark energy (5) Omega = 1 (6) Omega = 0.03 (7) Omega[adjusted] = 1 (8) Tons of "dark matter subhaloes" (9) An order of magnitude too few "subhaloes" (10) One little universe (11) 10^500 multiverses And the list goes on and on if you want to consider "smaller" ad hoc "adjustments". Peebles has ridiculed to situation periodically. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |